Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

January 10th, 2023:

It’s going to be a brutal legislative session for LGBTQ folks in Texas

I really wish this weren’t the case, but it is. It’s going to be bad.

Two bills that would ban classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in Texas public schools before certain grade levels are poised to receive top Republican backing in this year’s legislative session. But critics warn that the legislation could further marginalize LGBTQ students and families while exposing teachers to potential legal threats.

The two bills — authored by Reps. Steve Toth, R-The Woodlands, and Jared Patterson, R-Frisco — closely resemble legislation out of Florida that critics dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” lawHouse Bill 631 and House Bill 1155 are among a flurry of anti-LGBTQ legislation awaiting lawmakers when they return to the Capitol on Tuesday.

Florida’s law prohibits schools from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten through third grade. Both Texas bills mirror such a ban. Toth’s HB 631 would expand the restriction until fifth grade. Patterson’s HB 1155 would extend it to eighth grade.

Their proposals would also prohibit lessons on sexuality and gender identity at any grade level if they are “not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate.” Patterson’s bill doesn’t define what is appropriate for various age groups. Toth’s bill requires the lessons to align with state standards but doesn’t specify which standards.

Like Florida’s law, the two Texas bills don’t explicitly ban the use of the word “gay” in schools. The bills’ authors also maintain that the legislation would protect “parental rights” by allowing parents to more directly control what their children learn in school, including the existence of different sexual orientations and gender identities.

“Parental rights are paramount to the safety and well-being of a child,” Patterson said in a Jan. 3 tweet introducing his bill. “Therefore, I filed HB 1155 to ensure no school teaches radical gender ideology to any child from K-8th grade, and where parents must review and sign off on any health-related services.”

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has signaled that he would support passing a Texas version of the Florida law — even before these bills were filed.

“I will make this law a top priority in the next session,” he said in a campaign email last April.

Critics of the legislation argue that the bills’ vague nature would suppress discussion related to LGBTQ issues and representation.

“The reality is that everybody has a gender identity and sexual orientation; avoiding those conversations is incredibly difficult,” Adri Pérez, an organizing director with Texas Freedom Network, told The Texas Tribune. “What it becomes is a tool to be leveraged specifically against LGBTQIA+ people, because what stands out is not the people who fit in but the people who are being specifically targeted and attacked as being different.”

[…]

Chloe Kempf and Brian Klosterboer, attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, said the bills could pose explicit risks to teachers and school districts in the form of lawsuits from parents who believe they’re not following the law.

Toth’s bill outlines a mechanism for parents to sue school districts for violating his proposals, which includes the parental notification portion of that bill. Experts say that part of these bills could require teachers to potentially out their students, and parents could sue districts if teachers don’t comply. School districts would be saddled with the cost of those lawsuits, experts say.

More broadly, Kempf said, the bills would pose risks to schools and educators in the form of potential ultra vires claims, which enable citizens to sue public officials who violate state laws. Although it’s not clear if these types of lawsuits would be successful, Klosterboer said, the larger impact is more confusion and headaches for schools.

“When a law is vague, it allows for discriminatory and targeted enforcement. And it also creates a very hostile and chilling atmosphere where people … go out of their way to self-censor,” Kempf said.

The bills’ vague language could also present challenges for schools trying to protect teachers from potential lawsuits.

“[Schools] might not even know what to tell teachers and staff how to actually protect themselves and protect the school district,” Klosterboer said.

Klosterboer added that it seems “very likely” that if Gov. Greg Abbott signs one of the bills into law, it would invite legal challenges.

[…]

Ultimately, LGBTQ advocates argue that these legislative actions are just another attack on an already marginalized population. As of last week, Texas Republican lawmakers have already filed 35 anti-LGBTQ bills for the 2023 session, far outnumbering the number of such bills that were filed ahead of the 2021 session, according to [Ricardo Martinez, CEO of Equality Texas].

“The legislation is meant to stigmatize LGBTQ people, isolate LGBTQ kids, and make teachers fearful of providing safe and inclusive classrooms,” he said.

There is ongoing litigation over Florida’s “don’t say gay” law. It will eventually be decided by SCOTUS. So yeah, that’s going great, too.

I would like to say something encouraging here. For sure, plenty of smart and passionate and dedicated people will do everything they can to fight these terrible bills, and you should do everything you can to help them. But the reality is that the Republicans have the numbers. They can pass whatever bills they want. This is what they want to do, and they believe they have a mandate after the 2022 election. They’re not going to stop until they’re voted out. Again, I wish I could tell you something else, but I can’t. It’s going to be a very rough six months. The Observer has more.

Lawsuit filed to keep The Former Guy off the 2024 ballot

Good luck with that.

Former president Donald Trump is facing a legal challenge to his 2024 bid for the presidency from a fellow Republican.

John Anthony Castro, an attorney from Texas and long-shot candidate for president in 2024, filed the lawsuit in federal court on Friday arguing that Trump was constitutionally ineligible to hold office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Known as the “Disqualification Clause,” the section prohibits anyone who engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States from holding “any office, civil or military, under the United States.” Castro is arguing that Trump’s involvement in the January 6th insurrection should disqualify him from holding public office again.

“The framers of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment intended the constitutional provision to be both self-executing and to provide a cause of action,” Castro, who’s representing himself, wrote in the complaint. “More specifically, the Union sought to punish the insurrectionary Confederacy by making their ability to hold public office unconstitutional.”

The Disqualification Clause mostly sat dormant since 1869 until last fall, when a New Mexico judge ousted Cowboys for Trump founder Couy Griffin from his position on the Otero County Commission for breaching the Capitol complex on Jan. 6.

Several advocacy groups, including Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), have vowed to pursue similar legal action against Trump during his 2024 run.

“The evidence that Trump engaged in insurrection is overwhelming,” CREW President Noah Bookbinder wrote in a letter to the former president on Nov. 3, before he declared his candidacy. “We are ready, willing and able to take action to make sure the Constitution is upheld and Trump is prevented from holding office.”

Castro was among the giant herd of candidates who ran in the CD06 special election in 2021. He won 5.51% of the vote, which was probably in the top half of performers. I saw another story about this that described him as a “long shot candidate”, and I’d say that’s accurate. He filed this lawsuit in Florida, and ironically drew the Trump-toadiest judge out there, Aileen Cannon; he says he plans to disqualify her from hearing the case, which checks out. He also noted that the advocacy groups that intend to file their own lawsuits will do so later in the year, and he wanted to get out ahead of things. I don’t expect anything to happen with this lawsuit, but it ought to be fun to watch regardless. Bloomberg has more.

March Madness could get bigger

Here’s the story you probably heard about.

A recommendation by the NCAA’s Division I Transformation Committee issued Tuesday would expand the NCAA basketball tournaments to 90 teams.

The committee tasked with finding “opportunities to modernize college sports” issued several recommendations in a 39-page report, most notably the expansion of postseason tournaments. From the report, the committee issued the following recommendation:

Accommodate access for 25% of active Division I members in good standing in team sports sponsored by more than 200 schools.

This would include both the men’s and women’s NCAA tournaments and expand both fields. Each tournament currently invites 68 teams. There are 358 Division I men’s basketball programs and 350 women’s programs. A field of 25% would break down to roughly 90 teams for each tournament, assuming the NCAA would seek to keep both fields the same size.

Tuesday’s recommendation is strictly that — a recommendation. It will go to the Division I board of directors for consideration at next week’s NCAA convention. Expansion would also require approval of each sport’s governing body. The committee called for final recommendations to be made by January 2024 in time to be implemented for the 2024-25 seasons.

The report has a lot more stuff in it about things like medical coverage, mental health services, degree completion and more, but the possible tournament expansion was the subject of the headlines. It’s also not likely to happen anytime soon.

There was some predictable, dismayed reactions to the NCAA Division I Transformation Committee’s official set of recommendations released on Tuesday. The most notable proposal is the option for D-I sports with 200-plus teams to allow championship brackets to fill by as many as 25% of that sport’s membership. In college basketball, this means the bracket could grow as large as 90 teams.

But the NCAA Tournament isn’t going to expand to 90 teams.

I doubt it’s going to expand at all — at least any time soon. My belief is buttressed by conversations with a handful of high-ranking sources across the industry.

“Going to 90, you’d roll on the floor laughing at the quality of teams,” one NCAA source said. “It’s unfathomable that someone could think that’s a good idea.”

There is stern belief among many NCAA Tournament power brokers that significant expansion (say, anything north of 80 teams) isn’t desired and won’t be happening, according to my sources. Minor expansion (going to 72 or 76) doesn’t carry temptation right now either but would theoretically be more plausible way down the road if push ever came to shove.

“There’s been no consideration, despite opportunities multiple times, for expansion,” another source said. “It’s never gotten a serious consideration. Not even remotely.”

That’s one part missing from this discourse. The NCAA didn’t need the Transformation Committee’s permission to consider expansion. It’s always an option. The fact it’s never grown beyond 68 speaks volumes, especially after a trial balloon about a 96-team tournament was roundly ridiculed in 2010.

Expansion isn’t something that can be done over a few lengthy Zoom meetings. It would take years of planning and thousands of hours of coordination between dozens of very important people. Who ultimately decides? The Division I men’s basketball committee (i.e. selection committee members), which has logically opted against expansion in the past 12 years. NCAA senior vice president of basketball Dan Gavitt, who oversees that committee, would be the biggest voice in the room, in addition to other senior NCAA staff. From there, the men’s basketball oversight committee would have to approve any changes before a vote went to the Board of Directors.

But that’s not in the plans right now.

There’s more, and however you feel about this idea the case that it’s unlikely to happen anytime soon and maybe shouldn’t happen at all (or only at a more modest level) is compelling. I had forgotten about the 2010 proposal that went nowhere; there had been some rumblings about expansion before that as well. I’ll be honest and say that I’d love to see the tournament expand out to 96 teams – the top 32 seeds would get a bye in this scenario, which ought to reduce the concerns about having more non-competitive games. I’d like to see more teams from the non-power conferences get a shot. There are 40 teams in the NIT every year, the big bracket can accommodate a larger field. I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for it, but I hope that someday it will happen.